Photo Credit: Uri Lenz/Flash90

Earlier this month we saw something historic in Israeli politics – the largest unity government ever formed. Unlike most unity governments, this one was born neither from a sense of national emergency nor from an era of national euphoria, where political differences fade. Instead, this coalition was induced by the threat of the ballot-box and is a result of Israeli politicians’ strategic dedication to either keeping their seats or scoring the slot above them in the next coalition jig. For many observers, the “surprise” which greeted Israelis on May 8th was yet another political dance where the citizen stands on the sidelines, half-bewildered, half-relieved, but ultimately a spectator meant to watch, wonder, and wait for another year and half to be heard from again. This scenario begs the question: when it comes to the state of Israel’s representative governance, is the tail wagging the dog? Put simply, is Israeli citizenry merely an accessory to the political decision-making of the day?

There is no debating the many benefits that may derive from a unity government for Israel today. With a nuclear Iran fast approaching, Syria imploding, Turkey menacing, and Hezbollah-Hamas gaining strength rapidly, stability is a good thing, which explains why most Israelis don’t want early elections. Indeed, there are other benefits that could derive from a Likud-Kadima union, such as the ability to fast-track emergency legislation like the Tal Law, budgetary issues, and critical electoral reforms.


There is no doubt that a stable unity government will contribute to Israel’s wellbeing. But as in all things, there is a subtext to this story that cannot be expediently swept under the rug. In this case, it has become clear that the unity government’s main ambition is consolidating its own power, as the Israeli citizen is once again forced to endure ad hoc styled governance in which day-to-day politicking is more about the maintenance of power then exercising it. Benjamin Disraeli, one of the greatest parliamentarians, once said, “Coalitions though successful have always found this, that their triumph has been brief.” Such has been the fortune of too many of Israel’s political coalitions, and the current one cannot argue for an exception.

This is not to say that there are not good, well-intentioned men and women in the Knesset that seek to improve the lives of Israelis and future of Israel. There are many. But the overall climate inside Israel’s governing class is one that applauds, even pursues, stability, at the cost of clarity in policy. In these environments, it becomes difficult for leaders to properly undertake their duties – and understand the nature of their duty – when grappling the ‘greasy pole’ of politics. Serving their real constituency – that is, the general public – instead of their power base is not a notion that illuminates the corridors of power inside Israel.  Sadly, the numerous scandals and convictions of former PMs, Presidents, and MKs are constant reminders of unscrupulous public servants blatantly neglecting their national duties. Israel cannot afford such willful ignorance, given the volatile regional realities and the critical domestic issues that crowd its agenda. Israelis are an audaciously capable people in times of crises. The concern is that political stability could lead to policy inertia, which leads to a fatal sense of apathy.

To most honest observers, Netanyahu and Mofaz’s marriage is one of convenience, a mutual desire for power consolidation and political momentum. And how can we blame either of them for mimicking the political strategies of the day? Netanyahu has managed to successfully navigate – even dominate – a political system, while Mofaz – newly installed as Kadima’s head – effectively read the writing on the wall regarding Kadima’s chances in an early election. What is indisputable is the complete lack of effort by either leader to court the general public in the formation of this unprecedented coalition.

This sort of disinterest in the grassroots constituency has become standard. Take, for example, the Netanyahu government’s response to the hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens that took to the streets last summer to protest Israel’s centralization of wealth and power. The Israeli grassroots finally made their voice heard, but lacked the clarity of purpose and the sacred national symbols to unite and speak truth to power. The proof of this, as they say, is in the pudding. We should have seen a more serious response than the appointment of the Trachtenberg commission. Since then, the Israeli citizen has been led – by delays and other obfuscations – back into the grip of societal apathy, where we congratulate the government for forming a coalition but fail to hold it accountable for demands which swept the nation less than 10 months ago. And so, demands from a broad consensus of Israel’s population have so far yielded only minor legislative changes and a unity government that can more easily diffuse accountability for inaction.